generic aggregation of resource reservation protocol (rsvp) for ipv4 and ipv6 reservation over pcn...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN domains Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022072006/56649f575503460f94c7c408/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation
Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN
domains
Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01
1
![Page 2: Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN domains Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022072006/56649f575503460f94c7c408/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline
Main Changes Open issues Next steps
2
![Page 3: Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN domains Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022072006/56649f575503460f94c7c408/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Main changes
Congestion-Level-Estimate field removed from Single Marking (SM) PCN and Controlled (CL) PCN objects (for both IPv4 and IPv6 object versions)
two new objects (IPv4 and IPv6) to be used with the PCN CL edge behavior (+ open issue)
two new CL based PCN objects defined used to carry number of flow identifiers for individual flows within an ingress-egress-aggregate that have recently experienced excess-marking
3
![Page 4: Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN domains Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022072006/56649f575503460f94c7c408/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Main changes
C-Type = RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Port | Destination Port | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // // + + | Source Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Port | Destination Port | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Protocol | Reserved | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4
![Page 5: Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN domains Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022072006/56649f575503460f94c7c408/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Open issues
two possible options of carrying PCN objects of C-Type: RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs or RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs (see slide 6,7)
comments provided on the list: increase clarity of the draft (including examples)
Will be worked out Changes on relation between PCN ingress-egress-
aggregate and RSVP generic aggregated reservation states:
Each ingress – egress pair supports only one PCN IEA More than one RSVP generic aggregated reservation states can
be mapped to the PCN IEA (instead of mapping one RSVP generic aggregated reservation state to one PCN IEA)
Changes in terminology, Section 3.1 and 3.11 need to be worked out
reducing bandwidth without terminating flow (see slides 8, 9) 5
![Page 6: Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN domains Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022072006/56649f575503460f94c7c408/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Open issues: possible options carrying new C-type CL PCN objects
Option 1: PCN objects of C-Types (RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs or RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs) MUST be carried by the aggregated Resv message together with other PCN object C-Types
Advantage: No new message type needs to be used by signaling protocol
Disadvantage: objects can become larger than maximum transmission unit (MTU)
along a path to Aggregator Comment sent to tsvwg list on disadvantage:
number of flows is chosen such that objects do not become larger than (MTU) along a path to Aggregator
6
![Page 7: Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN domains Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022072006/56649f575503460f94c7c408/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Open issues: possible options carrying new C-type CL PCN objects
Option 2: PCN objects of C-Types (RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv4-PCN-CL-FLIDs or RSVP-AGGREGATE-IPv6-PCN-CL-FLIDs) MUST be carried by NOTIFY messages (<flow descriptor list>) [RFC3473]
Advantage: total list of flow IDs that need to be sent to Aggregator can be
divided in smaller sets each of these sets can be then carried by one NOTIFY message,
without fragmentation Disadvantage:
signaling protocol needs to use an additional message type
7
![Page 8: Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN domains Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022072006/56649f575503460f94c7c408/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Open issues: reducing bandwidth without terminating flow
PCN-ingress-node should be able to reduce bandwidth of an individual flow without terminating the flow Why?:
flows will not be terminated unnecessary and at the same time the IEA bandwidth is reduced to solve the severe congestion
How?: When for IEA supported by PCN-ingress-node incoming
traffic needs to be reduced then: based on a local policy and for same IEA, selects a number
of e2e RSVP sessions (individual flows) to be either terminated or reserved bandwidth of e2e RSVP sessions (individual flows) is reduced
8
![Page 9: Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN domains Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022072006/56649f575503460f94c7c408/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Open issues: reducing bandwidth without terminating flow
Solution proposed on list: specify situation that in case of severe congestion flows
are terminated also emphasize that in some situations different policies
can be used to specify that instead of terminating complete bandwidth allocated to one or more flows, and by using mechanisms specified by RFC4680 and RFC 4495, only a percentage of bandwidth allocated to one or more flows is reduced
9
![Page 10: Generic Aggregation of Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservation over PCN domains Georgios Karagiannis, Anurag Bhargava draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-pcn-01](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022072006/56649f575503460f94c7c408/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Next steps
Update draft based on received comments Assign one or more reviewers Other
10